Artemisia

What are the main points of difference between Mary Garrard article on "Artemisia," and the Belen Vidal article? Do you think Vidal offers viable insights into analyzing the film from a feminist point of view?

Basically, the differences I found between the two articles is that Vidal tries to rationalize the sexual exploitation of Artemisia in Merlet's film, while Garrard brings to light how this "romantic portrayal" of Artemisia's life is irrational and defeating to the true character of Artemisia as a heroic female artist. While both sides make their feminist points heard, I personally found myself in complete agreement with Garrard's point of view on the film. Vidal attempts to to prove that the film's erotic orientation is pertinent to the life of Artemisia, because her artistic creativity was drawn from her rape. In one instance, Vidal went on to say, "...Artemisia foreground a synchronic, spatial structure that sustains the fantasy scenario of woman artist's sexual and creative awakening" (Vidal pg. 77). The film portrays this sexual awakening, by the rape of Artimesia, as ammo and inspiration for her works--thus focusing the film from a sexualized perspective, conjuring the ideas that trauma and pain is the catalyst for a female artist to be considered an artitistic genius. Thus, we can see how Artemisia's volatile life experiences (in connection to her work) align with such traumatic life stories of other woman artists like Frida Kahlo. "Its romance narrative dwells on themes of seduction and abandonment, which can be interpreted as self-defeating deconstruction of the liberal model. This film unfolds as a fantasy scenario that spectacularizes woman's body and reenacts past traumas (Vidal pg. 89). The fact that the film relies on a precarious incident (Artemisia's rape) to form the main visual story of her life is problematic nonetheless. Vidal points out that Merlet's film is a cross between fantasy and reality, taking artistic license to gloss over the "sexual awakening" of this artist, and manifest it as a biopic that portrays Artemisia's sexual desires as a way for the artist to gain access and moreover control of her own female body. I think it is important to note that Vidal saw this film as a biopic that "mediates between seeing and knowing betweent the historical text and contemporary rewriting"--picking up on the fact that Merlet's film is only part truth, and we, as an audience should be weary of believing what we see. It seems that Vidal's arguement is valid in the sense that the author uses a considerable amount of analytical approach to a majority of the scenes in the film while Garrard lambasts the film on a more abstract level. Garrard argues that the biographical represenation is not about, and shouldn't be about the sexual exploitation of the young Artemisia. She should be known for more than just that, and Mertel twists the narrative to form a cinematic treat that entises the viewer on a patriarchial masculine level: promoting the idea that sex sells, and women only achieve greatness by being viewed through an erotic framework. Garrard boasts that the film is an injustice to the truth's behind Artemisia's artistic capabilities, saying, "She challenged the gender norms of her day through her art, presenting traditional themes with altered emphases that bring out the perspectives of the female characters"(Garrard pg. 67). Garrad highlights the fact that the oversexualized focus of the film overshadows the nature of Artemisia's given talent as an artist, and instead has the viewer fixated on her traumatic experience and erotic portrayal rather than her creative inspiration. Garrard states, "By Merlet's own account, the key theme of the film is that Artemisia's sexual initiation by Tassi launched her artistic creativity, awakening her esthetic and sensory perceptions through his teaching and lovemaking...It is Tassi's creative powers that are the film's focus" (Garrard 67). By relying so much on this material it takes away from Artemisia as an artist and places her under the looked-at-ness scope society likes to attribute the representation of a beautiful woman, and we begin to forget we are watching a film about an artist. Thusly, the power assigned to Artemisia through historical context as the "Renaissance heroin and great woman artist," is lost in translation and we are presented with a film about the sexual escapades of a woman during the 1500's who also happened to be an artist. I agree with Garrad on the fact that this film does not accurately portray the artist as a master of talent, but rather stereotypically deflates her to a mere element of visual consumption and sexualized genre of cinematic scopophilia. In fact, I dont believe the sexualized image supported by Vidal as a "image as cultural memory, image as fantasy," has the ability to show the strength of Artemisia and the later profound impact of her art. I stand by Garrad's arguement and the sheer disgust for film's "genre of erotic" approach. In truth, Garrard said it best, stating, "For if we are not talking about Artemisia's sex life we are not talking about her art" (Garrard 67).

Has this movie altered your view about whether its acceptable for a biopic to stray from the facts of a person's life?

I think that this film acts as a wake up call to the images that we visually digest and take in as truth. Granted, in this day in age, images almost come with a warning label for artistic license, but this film truly exploits the boundaries of that idea. In her article, Garrard pointed out that the rape of Artemisia and the court appearance that has her supporting her rapist/lover/teacher is actually proved to be false by historical document which say that she actually did not consent to the rape. Without the historical document to falsify the film's represenation we could go on understanding that Artemisia was just a young woman overcome by her desires, and her work is just a response to this event in her life. But truth shows that Artemesia was more than just a female artist who overcame trauma, she the one of the first women to be recognized as a great artist. Garrard discusses the fact that it is the responsibility of art to tell truth, so if we view this film as "truth" we can quickly be led down a road of deceit. But since most American gain their knowledge and "truth" through television, the idea of biographical honesty is constantly in question. Widely known is the fact that producers and directors will go to any length to create a "blockbuster hit," even if that means stretching the truth. So as voyeurs, it is our job to question the represented truth. Though the story presented might be intising we have to take what is being portrayed with a grain of salt and learn to understand that what is created is meant for visual consumption and therefore is naturally ingrained with the notion of enticing our sense of pleasure. Art is just as guilty of faslifying the truth as cinema, except cinema pushes the limits and blurs the line between reality and fantasy. In the biographical sense, under contemporary terms, I understand "fudging the truth" to make the story a bit more exciting, but with regards to this film I believe that the biopic strayed to far from its biographical homebase. The film exploited the traumas of Artemisia's life and sexualized her character, so much that all I saw was the documentation of of a woman's erotic, gendered orientation. The film relied too much on an incident and proceeded to draw us in through the masculine gaze of female beauty. "Spicing up" the storyline is understandable, but exploiting the biographical character of an individual (and especially in the case of the oppression of the female artist) for a visual delight is completely unacceptable.